One of the controversies that has sadly plagued those who embrace Calvin as one of the more astute and faithful theologians concerns the “free offer of the gospel.” Some followers of Calvin, a minority of them, reject the free offer of the gospel. They believe, erroneously, that the gospel is only to be offered to the elect. While listening to a former PCA worship leader lament Calvinism at the recent John 3:16 Conference, he described this strain of Calvinism called hyper-Calvinism.
While preparing for last week’s sermon on Psalm 16, I didn’t find Calvin to be particularly helpful. This is a rarity. But he did say something that should set the record straight on what John himself believed Scripture to teach.
“It would be of no advantage to us for God to offer himself freely and graciously to us, if we did not receive him by faith, seeing he invites to himself both the reprobate and the elect in common; but the former, by their ingratitude, defraud themselves of this inestimatable blessing. Let us, therefore, know that both these things proceed from the free liberality of God; first, his being our inheritance, and next, our coming to the possession of him by faith. The counsel of which David makes mention is the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, by which we are prevented from rejecting the salvation to which he calls us, which we would otherwise certainly do, considering the blindness of our flesh. Whence we gather, that those who attribute to the free will of man the choice of accepting or rejecting the grace of God basely mangle that grace, and show as much ignorance as impiety.”
Calvin himself holds to the “free offer of the gospel” to all. God truly offers Himself to the elect. Notice how he phrases that- God offers Himself, not just salvation. As John Piper noted in his book, God is the gospel.
Calvin held that God did not prevent any from coming to Himself. Rather it is the sinful nature which hates God and refuses the offer of grace.
Those who receive the offer of God do so as a result of the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Having chosen them for salvation, God then illumines them so they can and will believe receiving God himself and salvation.
In this way, Calvin upholds God’s sovereignty and his liberality. We are to freely offer the gospel to all we meet and have opportunity to speak in this way. Whether or not they believe the good news is a result of whether or not God illumines them by the Holy Spirit or if they persist in their unbelief through the power of the flesh.
May the hyper-calvinists stop presenting themselves as faithful adherents of Calvin’s theology. His theology holds the tensions of Scripture in proper tension- theirs does not.
Update: While studying for Luke 1, Mary’s Song, I found this in Calvin’s Commentary.
“God offers his benefits indiscriminately to all, and faith opens its bosom to receive them; while unbelief allows them to pass away, so as not to reach us.” John Calvin
And from Luke 2:10-
“… just as, at the present day, God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few.” John Calvin
Why do some have so much trouble believing this?
The discussion in the comments reveals a few things. The supposition is that the free offer of the gospel (or well-intended offer) implies that God is of 2 minds, that he wants all to be saved. The free offer of the gospel, as a doctrine, makes no such claims. The point is our responsibility to proclaim the message of salvation freely. God has ordained who will believe it. This is not irrational- for we are distinguishing between 2 things: God’s sovereign choice and our responsibility as His redeemed creatures.
You need to familiarize yourself with Raymond Blacketeer’s reconsideration of the so-called Well Meant Offer, particularly his discussion of Calvin, since it’s clear your handling of Calvin is simply a selective cherry picking that settles nothing.
Consider this from Blacketeer:
Are you now going to charge Calvin with hyper-Calvinism! I don’t see why not since you and others routinely libel and slander good Christian men who reject the WMO as incoherence that unthinkingly and impiously imputes irrationality to God.
Nope, not cherry picking. the issue is this: are we to command all men everywhere to repent, or are we to wait until they show signs of being elect?
This is how I understand hyper-Calvinism from proper Calvinism. As you see, I am focusing on our responsibility, not the secret council of God- of which NONE of us is party to (Det. 29:29).
Calvin even in my ‘cherry picking’ quote defends the sovereignty of God. Those godly men like Spurgeon, Thomas Boston, the Erskines and other Marrow Men, Murray and others who have been maligned by others, defend the sovereignty of God in salvation. But they recognize the responsibility of Christians to obey the command of God to freely call people to faith and repentance. This is clear from Scripture, just as clear as God’s sovereignty in salvation.
He will save all who believe! Only the elect will believe, but we don’t know who they are until we press the claims of Christ.
Nope, not cherry picking. the issue is this: are we to command all men everywhere to repent, or are we to wait until they show signs of being elect?
Indeed you are cherry picking Calvin. You find a citation that appears to fit your presupposition and then assert that Calvin agrees with you and the notion that God desires for the salvation of those he predestined to perdition. This is shoddy scholarship. As you can see from just the brief citation from Blacketeer’s study of Calvin, Calvin takes direct issue with the basic premise of the so-called “well meant offer” and the assumption that God desires the salvation of all men universally understood. Calvin does not share your position or the position of the notably but confused theologians you cite. Even in the quote from Calvin (I assume you wrote the post) it would appear that Calvin is referring to the outward call and not some inward disposition and desire on the part of God for “the fulfillment of something which he had not in the exercise of his sovereign will actually decreed to come to come to pass” (John Murray, “The Free Offer of the Gospel”).
Even in your response to me you conflate and confuse two different ideas and disingenuously try to impute them to me. Where did I deny the command that all men everywhere must repent and believe? Where did I say that men must “show signs of being elect” before the command be given? Well, nowhere of course, because you are trying to create a straw man in your own mind and then attach my name to it.
FWIW if I agreed with your caricature of me I would agree that I would be a “hyper-Calvinists” properly and historically understood. However, a denial of, say, Murray’s incoherent reply to Gordon Clark in his defense of the “sincere offer” is not “hyper-Calvinism” simply because Calvin never imputed irrationality to God in they way Murray and others like him have done. Calvin may have been inconsistent here and there, but in the opinion of Reformed scholars like Blacketeer, Nicole, Clark, Reymond and others Calvin cannot be used to support your thesis. Why? Because he said so many other things that soundly refute the underlying premise of the WMO which is that God has a desire for the salvation of those He has decreed not to save. Instead, you feel yourself justified to slander and liable good Christian men as “hyper-Calvinists” who refuse to impute insanity to God and who believe that all that God desires that He does.
But they recognize the responsibility of Christians to obey the command of God to freely call people to faith and repentance. This is clear from Scripture, just as clear as God’s sovereignty in salvation.
And nowhere have I denied this. Yes, all men who come under the preaching of the Gospel are responsible to repent and believe just as they are commanded. But, I don’t make the fallacious and illogical leap of trying to infer something in the indicative from something in the imperative — something which even school children know cannot be done. Those who advance the so-called WMO erroneously infer a universal desire on the part of God for the salvation of all men from the command that all must believe. It is a fundamental a problem of logic that results from faulty exegesis. As Robert Reymond points out:
Consequently, when others prefer not to follow you in your illogic and refuse to impute irrationality to God you libel and slander them as “hyper-Calvinists.” I would say that is sin pure and simple, the sin of blasphemy first and foremost. It’s one thing to falsely label other Christians with the name “hyper-Calvinist” even as a means to silence debate. It’s quite another to advance arguments that necessarily impute incoherence and insanity to the Godhead.
If it is shoddy scholarship to use a quote from him, in context, rather than put words in his mouth… I’m guilty. I’ll remind you, I came across this passage in the course of sermon prep- not while trying to exhaustively research all he said on the subject. BUT, he said it.
I did not charge YOU with any of the particular misconceptions of hyper-Calvinists (or anyone else by name, mind you). I don’t know you, or your theology well enough to make such claims. But, I know enough about those typically classified as hyper-Calvinists in history (particularly those who attacked Spurgeon) to say that is something many hyper-Calvinists would say.
Perhaps your problem is that you think it all has to make coherent sense to our “little tea cup” minds. As finite beings we can have true knowledge, but not full, comprehensive knowledge. So, we can affirm the tensions we find in Scripture that we seem unable to resolve. That doesn’t make it irrational, but it means we can’t comprehend it.
Just one of those crazy Van Til guys … not a “Christian rationalist”. I am a mere creature relying upon God’s revelation, submitting to it rather than demand it submit to my reason.
I’m not going to argue with you- I’ll just have to disagree with you. This WMO thing is really a big deal to you- gets you quite worked up. How is that advancing the cause of the gospel again? All you seem to be doing is going after other Christians who aren’t “Calvinistic” enough? Which is odd, since I am a Calvinist, and one of my professors, with whom I studied the subject, is Nicole.
So I agree we won’t agree. Please, don’t try to pick a fight. Not interested.
If it is shoddy scholarship to use a quote from him, in context, rather than put words in his mouth… I’m guilty.
What’s shoddy is to use a quote from him and then simply assert Calvin supports the so-called “Free Offer” as advanced by Murray and other neo-Amyraldians feigning to be Calvinists. The quote you provided simply does not support your doctrines and the few I’ve provide disprove your assertion and stand in stark contradistinction to the imagined universal desire of God for the salvation of all. Or, to put it another way, you cannot infer the Free or WMO from the citation you provided. That’s shoddy and, yes, you’re guilty.
I did not charge YOU with any of the particular misconceptions of hyper-Calvinists (or anyone else by name, mind you). I don’t know you, or your theology well enough to make such claims. But, I know enough about those typically classified as hyper-Calvinists in history (particularly those who attacked Spurgeon) to say that is something many hyper-Calvinists would say.
I realize you didn’t charge me directly, but implied in your remarks is that disagreement with Murray, Spurgeon and the Marrow men on the WMO is hyper-Calvinism and that is simply false. Clearly and unequivocally Calvin denies that God desires the salvation of the reprobate, so to call Christians who agree with Calvin and disagree with Murray, Spurgeon, et.al. on this point is to bear false witness. Now, if you actually stuck to the definition you advanced for hyper-Calvinism which is limited to a denial of the universal proclamation of the Gospel and that all who come under the preaching of the Gospel are responsible to believe as they are commanded, we would have no difference. However, and per the theologians you mention for support, you are not at all limiting yourself to this definition, now are you?
Perhaps your problem is that you think it all has to make coherent sense to our “little tea cup” minds.
No, my problem is that I would rather not impute irrationality to God and I maintain that His Word is perfect (1 Cor. 13:10, James 1:25), non-contradictory in all that it teaches (John 10:35) and doesn’t present to the mind assorted antinomies, and insoluble paradoxes. For example, concerning 1 Timothy 2:4 Spurgeon writes:
Notice, Spurgeon admits that he breaks with “our older Calvinistic friends” who have quite properly exegeted this passage as pertaining to all strata of men and not all men in general. What he fails to say is that those older Calvinistic friends include Calvin himself who said concerning this verse:
Notice, Calvin affirms precisely what Spurgeon denies concerning this passage. Worse, Spurgeon ADMITS his exegesis of this verse is inconsistent with the rest of his theology which, I assume, he believes is also derived from Scripture. Therefore, it would follow that if Spurgeon is right, the Scriptures do not cohere. Spurgeon said:
Notice, his exegesis results in a contradiction and renders his theology inconsistent. Yet, he is willing to allow this contradiction to stand because he believes he is being faithful to Scripture. The tragedy is that it is his errant understanding of this verse that has lead him into asserting a glaring inconsistency. Had he stuck with Calvin and the older Calvinists he would have avoided such a glaring contradiction in his own theology and would have remained true to Scripture. Further, despite his seemingly pious willingness to surrender consistency in order to be true to God’s Word, he imputes irrationality to God. Rather than such “inconsistences,” or better, contradictions acting as warning signs telling Spurgeon to go back and recheck his premises, he’d rather embrace nonsense and encourage others to do so as well.
As finite beings we can have true knowledge, but not full, comprehensive knowledge. So, we can affirm the tensions we find in Scripture that we seem unable to resolve. That doesn’t make it irrational, but it means we can’t comprehend it.
Ah, but you are not pleading ignorance any more than Spurgeon, Murray and the rest when they infer a universal desire or will for all men to be saved. They’re claiming their exegesis of such critical passages are sound – even though their exegesis results in them advancing a contradictory and blatantly inconsistent theology and pretending it is orthodox.
Just one of those crazy Van Til guys … not a “Christian rationalist”. I am a mere creature relying upon God’s revelation, submitting to it rather than demand it submit to my reason.
You are right. Van Til has done irreparable harm to the cause of truth and the Gospel.
I’m not going to argue with you- I’ll just have to disagree with you. This WMO thing is really a big deal to you- gets you quite worked up.
I don’t care what you do, but it is a big deal is when men like you, even pastors, who embrace the nonsense advanced by Murray and others go around falsley libeling others as “hyper-Calvinists.” Perhaps you don’t think bearing false witness — not to mention imputing irrationality to God – is a big deal?
How is that advancing the cause of the gospel again? All you seem to be doing is going after other Christians who aren’t “Calvinistic” enough? Which is odd, since I am a Calvinist, and one of my professors, with whom I studied the subject, is Nicole.
Advancing nonsense and incoherence and then pretending it is “Calvinism” does a grave disservice not only to Calvinism, but to the Gospel. Perhaps you should have paid more attention to your professor who wrote:
Notice, Nicole does not assert that “coextensive provision” Murray asserts which is a desire on the part of God for “the fulfillment of something which he had not in the exercise of his sovereign will actually decreed to come to come to pass.” He says this “expectation cannot be present if God has elected some of mankind and sent Christ to die for them only.” I should say so. Yet, for countless Christians, most recently James White and Robert Reymond, they are slandered as “hyper-Calvinists” by the “Free Offer” crowd who knowing advance nonsense feigning the glaring doctrinal contradictions they’re advancing is really thinking in submission to Scripture. It’s a farce.
So I agree we won’t agree. Please, don’t try to pick a fight. Not interested.
Of course we don’t agree and I’m not picking a fight. Unless you missed it, I’m calling you to repent. But, don’t worry, I’m done.
The New Dictionary of Theology (edited by Ferguson, Packer & David Wright) has 2 definitions of hyper-calvinism consistent with my usage here. Herman Hoeksema is listed as the most prominent recent theologian.
Calvin’s statements on Ps. 72 are not misrepresented in any way. But it shows that all of us are inconsistent, fallible, unlike the Scriptures.
I have nothing of which to repent.
Wow! A grumpy Calvinist. Who’da thought that?
As I look back at this exchange: he is attributing to me something I do not hold to- a universal atonement, “coextensive”. The Marrow Men did not hold to a co-extensive atonement, but Boston is clear that Christ died for the elect, and only the elect.
So, I am accused of hyper-Calvinism by the “moderate Calvinists” who hold to a coextensive atonement, and hypo-Calvinism by those who deny the WMO or Free Offer of the Gospel. Preaching it indiscriminately does not mean Jesus died for everyone, just that everyone must repent.
Yes, I’d say you are catching it from both sides, and I’ve also found on some issues when I am catching it from both sides, that might not be such a bad place to be, my friend.